> In my view, the most logical
> picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as
> follows.
>
> "Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. He was the son of
> God, and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles. But the cruel
> and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed him, just as
> they killed his teacher John before that. But then God his Father accepted
> Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward for his righteousness, made his the
> Messiah of Israel. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
> judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God. Believe in
> Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."
>
> All this is fully compatible with Judaism. But the Crucified Messiah of Mk
> is clearly a distortion of Judaism.

It's compatible with Judaism because you made it up! ;->

But if we accept this as a reconstruction of some sort, which parts of the
Gospel of Thomas are in line with this, since you are saying that the
"Jewish" parts of the GoT are early? "Jesus is alive" is more or less
Thomasine, but what else in your catechesis is compatible with GoT? Or, from
another point of view, which are the parts of GoT that you think are Jewish
and early?

Best Wishes

Andrew

Jim Bauer

There s a book out that may prove helpful for this debate, Charles Foxworth s _Jesus within Judaism_. I didn t get a chance to read the whole thing so I can t

Message 2 of 10
, Aug 3, 2000

0 Attachment

There's a book out that may prove helpful for this debate, Charles
Foxworth's _Jesus within Judaism_. I didn't get a chance to read the whole
thing so I can't synopsize here but think it worthy of at least drawing it
to the attention of the list members.

>on 8/2/00 10:35 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:
>
>> In my view, the most logical
>> picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as
>> follows.
>>
>> "Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. He was the son of
>> God, and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles. But the cruel
>> and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed him, just as
>> they killed his teacher John before that. But then God his Father

accepted

>> Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward for his righteousness, made his

the

>> Messiah of Israel. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
>> judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God. Believe in
>> Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."
>>
>> All this is fully compatible with Judaism. But the Crucified Messiah of

Mk

>> is clearly a distortion of Judaism.
>
>It's compatible with Judaism because you made it up! ;->
>
>But if we accept this as a reconstruction of some sort, which parts of the
>Gospel of Thomas are in line with this, since you are saying that the
>"Jewish" parts of the GoT are early? "Jesus is alive" is more or less
>Thomasine, but what else in your catechesis is compatible with GoT? Or,

from

>another point of view, which are the parts of GoT that you think are Jewish
>and early?
>
>Best Wishes
>
>Andrew
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
>To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Rick Hubbard

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Rick Hubbard wrote: The as-yet-unresolved problem of how to devise a defensible dating theory for the Gospel of Thomas moves no closer to

Message 3 of 10
, Aug 4, 2000

0 Attachment

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Rick Hubbard wrote:

"The as-yet-unresolved problem of how to devise a defensible dating
theory for the Gospel of Thomas moves no closer to denouement by simply
adopting Loisy's hypotheses about the origin and development of the
intracanonical gospels."

To which Y. Kuchinsky replied:

"Well, I beg to disagree, Rick."

Rick Hubbard Responded:

The absence of specifically stated reasons for disagreement, makes it is
difficult to rebut this statement. Disagreement is a normal part of
discourse, but it should be noted that it is both conventional and
courteous to explain *why* one disagrees with another (even on this
list).

With that in mind, I can do nothing more than review the evidence upon
which I based the conclusion that adopting Loisy's hypotheses about the
origin and development of the intracanonical gospels contributes nothing
to the dating of GThom.

My apologies for not including the proper references to Loisy's work in
my previous post. In order to rectify that oversight, I have included
them below.

In addition, I have also provided more extensive quotations from each
work previously cited in order to illuminate more clearly what Loisy
actually said. Hopefully, this will neutralize Kuchinsky's thinly veiled
accusation that I falsified my citations or otherwise mis-represented
what Loisy has written, ("...somehow I don't think you've represented
his views on this accurately," and "I cannot check out your **purported
quotes** [my emphasis]....").

Rick Hubbard wrote on July 24, 2000:

"First, Loisy's central thesis is that the intracanonical gospels
functioned as didactic instruments during the formative years of
Christianity. They were, in other words, catechisms or manuals of
instruction for Christian initiates (Birth, 43)."

To expand on this comment, Loisy's precise words on page 43 are as
follows:

"The Gospels when closely examined are far less the echoes of a
tradition zealous to keep intact the memories of Jesus than a didactic
instrument, we might even say a catechism of the worship rendered to the
Lord Christ.... Two cycles are, or centres, are discernable, the cycle
of the preaching in Galilee and the cycle of the passion in Jerusalem;
the instruction of catechumens and the revelation of a mystery; the
bapstismal catechism and the eucharistic [catechism]."

Rick Hubbard also wrote on July 24, 2000:

"Second, Loisy asserts that the catechesis of the gospels originated
before the gospels themselves, i.e., in the teaching of the primitive
church (Origins, 41)."

Again, to amplify this citation, Loisy's words on page 41 read:

"This profession of faith was all gathered up as it were in one word,
'Maranatha'- '"the Lord comes,"' is on the point of coming (cf. I
Corinthians xvi, 22). From First Corinthians (i,12-15) it results quite
clearly that the above profession of faith in Romans [Rom 10:9-10], *in
which the earliest catechetical teaching was summarized* [my emphasis],
was the profession of catechumens at baptism..."

Rick Hubbard wrote on July 24, 2000:

"Third, Loisy unequivocally states that the earliest forms of the
catechesis contained no reference to "the career and ministry of Jesus"
and that "considerable time lapsed before it [the catechesis] included
any record of the personal action and teaching of Jesus" (Origins, 43)."

Loisy's exact words on page 43 read:

"There is therefore no difficulty in obtaining a clear idea of of
Christian catechetical teaching in its primitive form. *The career and
ministry of Jesus had no place in it;* [my emphasis] .... While the
first form of the catechesis is thus clearly defined, documentary
evidence is defective as to the detail of the of its evolution to the
form which followed. *It seems, however, that a considerable course of
time elapsed before it included any record of the personal action and
teaching of Jesus..."

Finally on July 24, 2000 Rick Hubbard wrote:

Fourth, that which characterizes the catecheses imbedded in the
gospels are the themes of baptism and eucharist, the former of which
forms the cycle of preaching and deeds of Jesus and the latter of which
forms the framework for the passion narrative (Birth, 43).

To which Y. Kuchinsky replied on August 2, 2000:

"I'm now looking at page 43 in BIRTH (Allen and Unwin edition, 1948),
but I don't think this is what is said there."

It should be noted that the Allen and Unwin 1948 edition to which
Kuchinsky refers is not the same as the one from which I quote, so there
is a possibility that the pagination is different. In any case, however,
the edition which I cite contains these exact words of Loisy on page 43
(also cited above in support of my first point):

"The Gospels when closely examined are far less the echoes of a
tradition zealous to keep intact the memories of Jesus than a didactic
instrument, we might even say a catechism of the worship rendered to the
Lord Christ.... Two cycles are, or centres, are discernable, the cycle
of the preaching in Galilee and the cycle of the passion in
Jerusalem;.."

Hopefully this clarifies precisely what Loisy *did* write and that I am
thereby absolved from being guilty of fabricating citations or
misrepresenting what that author wrote.

It seems likely that Kuchinsky and I will remain in disagreement about
whether Loisy can make a substantial contribution to determining the
date of composition of GThom. On the one hand, I am unpersuaded by
Kuchinsky's undocumented opinions while he remains unconvinced that I
have accurately represented what Loisy wrote (as well as, apparently, my
own integrity).

It seems therefore that this discussion should be concluded simply by
repeating, once again, my original assertion from July 24, 2000:

"The as-yet-unresolved problem of how to devise a defensible dating
theory for the Gospel of Thomas moves no closer to denouement by simply
adopting Loisy's hypotheses about the origin and development of the
intracanonical gospels."

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman

Yuri Kuchinsky

... No way, Andrew! In fact, this was my rock-solid and completely objective reconstruction of what I ve found in the earliest texts! :) ... Of the most

Message 4 of 10
, Aug 4, 2000

0 Attachment

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Andrew Smith wrote:

> on 8/2/00 10:35 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:
>
> > In my view, the most logical
> > picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as
> > follows.
> >
> > "Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. He was the son of
> > God, and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles. But the cruel
> > and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed him, just as
> > they killed his teacher John before that. But then God his Father accepted
> > Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward for his righteousness, made his the
> > Messiah of Israel. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
> > judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God. Believe in
> > Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."
> >
> > All this is fully compatible with Judaism. But the Crucified Messiah of Mk
> > is clearly a distortion of Judaism.
>
> It's compatible with Judaism because you made it up! ;->

No way, Andrew!

In fact, this was my rock-solid and completely objective reconstruction of
what I've found in the earliest texts! :)

> But if we accept this as a reconstruction of some sort,

Of the most reasonable sort...

> which parts of the Gospel of Thomas are in line with this, since you
> are saying that the "Jewish" parts of the GoT are early?

I'm saying that GOT as a whole is a Jewish-Christian document.

> "Jesus is alive" is more or less Thomasine, but what else in your
> catechesis is compatible with GoT?

I'm saying that the earliest catechesis did not involve any document such
as GOT. So this came later, but still earlier than all the Gentile stuff
that went into the Synoptics.

> Or, from another point of view, which are the parts of GoT that you
> think are Jewish and early?

Take a look e.g. at saying #27 which talks about fasting and keeping the
Sabbath favourably.

BTW I said nothing about stratification of GOT so far. Sure, such a
stratification would be a legitimate and useful exercise, and a number of
attempts have been made already. In my view, these sayings that look most
like "gnostic" would probably be a late stratum.

But this is a different subject from what we've been discussing so far. My
main point so far is that we should look at GOT _as a whole_, and see it
as basically a Jewish-Christian document that, unlike the canonicals,
lacks any obvious late Gentile editorial intrusions. For example, the
original disciples are not bad-mouthed continously like they are in the
canonicals. Thus, redactionally, as a whole, GOT should be dated previous
to all three Synoptics.

Also, in regard to what Jim Bauer said, the book that he meant was
probably James H. Charlesworth, "Jesus within Judaism". There are quite a
few webpages mentioning it, and providing quotes.

>> "Jesus is alive" is more or less Thomasine, but what else in your
>> catechesis is compatible with GoT?
>
> I'm saying that the earliest catechesis did not involve any document such
> as GOT. So this came later, but still earlier than all the Gentile stuff
> that went into the Synoptics.

Here's your catechesis again. I've divided it into sections.

"

1. Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous.

2.He was the son of God,

3. and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles.

4. But the cruel and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed
him, just as they killed his teacher John before that.

5. But then God his Father accepted Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward
for his righteousness, made his the Messiah of Israel.

6. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God.

7.Believe in Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."

If this is typical of early Christianity, as you propose, surely GThomas is
very different to this. Which Thomas sayings or motifs are in line with the
various points of your catechesis? You could just insert the numbers of the
logia next to the parts of your catechesis, with a couple of comments.
Otherwise, why is Thomas so different to this?

Andrew

Ronald David McCann

I am getting lost here. I have read your debates since last october and frankly they usually blow me away. I have loved Joe s injections into the fray because

Message 6 of 10
, Aug 5, 2000

0 Attachment

I am getting lost here. I have read your debates since last october and
frankly they usually blow me away. I have loved Joe's injections into the
fray because they inject some "horse sense":

But I just don't understand this last exchange. How can anybody
debate if
Jesus was Jewish? Is everything up for debate in moderm scholarship?

There are "lurkers" who watch your exchanges with great interest. Youu
guys are always "On stage". Remember that. And Remember we are not as
bright as you are. But we are still interested

Ron

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Andrew Smith wrote:

> on 8/2/00 10:35 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:
>
> > In my view, the most logical
> > picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as
> > follows.
> >
> > "Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. He was the son of
> > God, and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles. But the cruel
> > and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed him, just as
> > they killed his teacher John before that. But then God his Father accepted
> > Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward for his righteousness, made his the
> > Messiah of Israel. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
> > judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God. Believe in
> > Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."
> >
> > All this is fully compatible with Judaism. But the Crucified Messiah of Mk
> > is clearly a distortion of Judaism.
>
> It's compatible with Judaism because you made it up! ;->
>
> But if we accept this as a reconstruction of some sort, which parts of the
> Gospel of Thomas are in line with this, since you are saying that the
> "Jewish" parts of the GoT are early? "Jesus is alive" is more or less
> Thomasine, but what else in your catechesis is compatible with GoT? Or, from
> another point of view, which are the parts of GoT that you think are Jewish
> and early?
>
> Best Wishes
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>

Rick Hubbard

... Your post raises some some interesting points which deserve response. First, while it does seem that everything is up for debate in contemporary

Message 7 of 10
, Aug 7, 2000

0 Attachment

Ronald David McCann wrote:

>
> I am getting lost here. I have read your debates since last october and
> frankly they usually blow me away. I have loved Joe's injections into the
> fray because they inject some "horse sense":
>
> But I just don't understand this last exchange. How can anybody
> debate if
> Jesus was Jewish? Is everything up for debate in moderm scholarship?

Your post raises some some interesting points which deserve response.

First, while it does seem that everything is "up for debate" in
contemporary scholarship, some things are not *seriously* debatable
because either those things have been unanimously accepted as "the most
assured results of scholarship" or because there is insufficient
empirical evidence about which legitimate debate can revolve (in other
words, there are simply some things we would like to know about, but
which we cannot because there is no evidence on which to base defensible
conclusions).

Second, it is often difficult for non specialists to identify (on this
list) those topics which are *seriously debateable* because a good deal
of the discussion on this list occurs between folks who are not
themselves specialists, but who are under-informed about the topic over
which they argue. Those folks seem to fall naturally into two groups:
those are are aware that they do not know everything about the subject
which they discuss, and at the opposite end of the spectrum, those who
imagine that they do. Within that latter group, is a subset of people
who not only imagine that they are sufficiently informed to be able to
argue cogently, but who also insist that their insight is so keen that
their very assertions are to be accepted without question. The challenge
for those who are content to "listen in" on the list, is to determine
who is credible and who is not.

With respect to the "Jewishness of Jesus," that seems to be one of those
topics about which there is a good deal of certainty in mainstream
scholarship. But that relative certainty does not preclude debate on the
issue. On one hand some dispute his "Jewishness" because to accept that
conclusion would somehow interfere with their own assumptions or
eccentric indulgences. Others, as I suggested, debate the issue simply
because they are uninformed about the strength of the evidence which
suggest that he *was* Jewish.

Your observation that "you are all on-stage" is sobering. Sometimes we
forget (or at least I forget) that the number of people who participate
in discussions on this list represent only a fraction of the total
subscribers. For that reason alone, those who post here would be well
advised to put forward their best, and to refrain from the sort of
misbehavior that reflects badly on everyone else. Argument by assertion,
for example, is an anathema. Usually (depending of course on the person
involved and the circumstance), such representations automatically
disqualify their own credibility and cast upon the one who made the
assertion a cloud of suspicion about the veracity of all else the person
says elsewhere.

In any case, hang in there and always feel free to ask for
clarifications!

Rick Hubbard
Humble Maine Woodsman

>
> There are "lurkers" who watch your exchanges with great interest. Youu
> guys are always "On stage". Remember that. And Remember we are not as
> bright as you are. But we are still interested
>
> Ron
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Andrew Smith wrote:
>
> > on 8/2/00 10:35 AM, Yuri Kuchinsky at yuku@... wrote:
> >
> > > In my view, the most logical
> > > picture of the earliest Jewish-Christian catechesis would have been as
> > > follows.
> > >
> > > "Jesus was a remarkable man, very wise and righteous. He was the son of
> > > God, and he healed the sick, and performed many miracles. But the cruel
> > > and unjust authorities of our country arrested and killed him, just as
> > > they killed his teacher John before that. But then God his Father accepted
> > > Jesus into his bosom, and, as a reward for his righteousness, made his the
> > > Messiah of Israel. Jesus is alive, and he will come back soon in glory to
> > > judge the actions of all, and to usher in a New Age of God. Believe in
> > > Jesus, or you will never have life everlasting."
> > >
> > > All this is fully compatible with Judaism. But the Crucified Messiah of Mk
> > > is clearly a distortion of Judaism.
> >
> > It's compatible with Judaism because you made it up! ;->
> >
> > But if we accept this as a reconstruction of some sort, which parts of the
> > Gospel of Thomas are in line with this, since you are saying that the
> > "Jewish" parts of the GoT are early? "Jesus is alive" is more or less
> > Thomasine, but what else in your catechesis is compatible with GoT? Or, from
> > another point of view, which are the parts of GoT that you think are Jewish
> > and early?
> >
> > Best Wishes
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
> > To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> To post to gthomas, send email to gthomas@egroups.com
> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to gthomas-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Isidoros

... Not unlike, let us say, of the certainty in mainstream scholarship of the Catholic Middle Ages, say, about the relative movement and the positions of the

Message 8 of 10
, Aug 22, 2000

0 Attachment

To "lost" Donald David McCann's:

> > I am getting lost here [...] I just don't understand this last exchange.
> > How can anybody debate if Jesus was Jewish?
> > Is everything up for debate in moderm scholarship?

offered Rick Hubbard, on 7 Aug 2000:

>With respect to the "Jewishness of Jesus," that seems to be one of those
>topics about which there is a good deal of certainty in mainstream
>scholarship.

Not unlike, let us say, of the "certainty in mainstream scholarship"
of the Catholic Middle Ages, say, about the relative movement and
the positions of the Sun and Gaia and of the planets. Ask Galileo Galilei.

>But that relative certainty does not preclude debate on the
>issue. On one hand some dispute his "Jewishness" because to accept that
>conclusion would somehow interfere with their own assumptions or
>eccentric indulgences. Others, as I suggested, debate the issue simply
>because they are uninformed about the strength of the evidence which
>suggest that he *was* Jewish.

You don't say! Two possibilities, neatly taking care the all. How
wonderfully simple, and all exhaustive are the two solutions,
and how easily disposing of the"uninformed" "debaters". So didactic.

>In any case, hang in there and always feel free to ask for
>clarifications!

Isidoros,
who apologizes here (too) for the lateness to re-enter the fray-- and,
remembers, especially in lieu of the above offered "clarifications",
that has indeed asked for a certain "definitions" ("please" he pleaded)
before long. Yet, all one continues to read are the same "historical
suppositions". This 2000 years o()d debate goes on in part because
people will not question the "given".

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.